Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1067
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Siddek Ali Mazumder, S/o. Lt. Abdul Latif Mazumder And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam Rep. By The Comm. And Secy. To The Govt. Of Assam, Environment And Forest Deptt. And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/6655 of 2016
Decided On : 21-04-2026
For the Petitioner:Shri A. R. Bhuyan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Shri D. Gogoi, SC, Forest Department.
Conversion of forest land for non-forest use requires mandatory prior approval from the central government. Internal administrative communications do not create enforceable legal rights, and eligibility for forest-dweller benefits is strictly contingent upon meeting precise statutory requirements regarding membership and residency duration.
Headnote:(A) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Section 2 - Restriction on de-reservation of forests - Use of forest land for non-forest purposes - Prior approval of Central Government is mandatory - Any proposal for conversion of forest land into revenue land must adhere to express statutory restrictions against de-reservation - (Paras 7, 8, 10).
(B) Inter-departmental communication - Legal right - Communication requesting reports or conducting administrative inquiries does not vest any substantive or enforceable right in the claimants - Administrative internal notes or draft proposals, in the absence of a formal, communicated order, cannot be relied upon to create an obligation on the state - (Paras 6, 13).
(C) Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 - Sections 2(c) and 2(o) - Eligibility criteria - Applicants must strictly satisfy statutory definitions regarding community membership and residency duration to avail benefits under special forest rights legislation - (Paras 5, 14).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed a petition seeking the conversion of land designated as a forest village into a revenue village and subsequent settlement of land rights, asserting long-term possession. They relied on historical administrative communications and claims under forest rights legislation. The government contended that the conversion of forest land for non-forest use was prohibited without central approval and that the claimants failed to fulfill the residency and community requirements under the relevant forest rights law.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the law imposes a strict restriction on the de-reservation of forest land for non-forest use, requiring mandatory prior approval from national authorities. Internal administrative inquiries do not constitute binding government orders or confer vested rights. Additionally, the court found that the claimants did not meet the specific statutory definitions of traditional forest-dwelling communities required for the recognition of land rights.
Issues: The main issues were whether historical administrative communications established an enforceable right, whether forest land could be de-reserved without central approval, and whether the claimants satisfied the criteria for recognition as forest dwellers under special protective legislation.
Ratio Decidendi: De-reservation of forest land is strictly prohibited except with prior central approval. Administrative reports and internal correspondences do not function as legally binding orders and cannot confer rights. Individuals must meet explicit statutory definitions of forest-dwelling communities to qualify for benefits under forest protection statutes.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prayer for regularization of land in forest village and historical context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. conflicting claims regarding forest land occupancy, rights under the 2006 act, and statutory restrictions under the forest conservation act, 1980. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. strict compliance with section 2 of the forest conservation act, 1980 requires central government approval for de-reserving forest land. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. inter-departmental communications do not vest legal titles, and failure to meet statutory definitions of forest-dwelling communities precludes relief. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. dismissal of the writ petition due to lack of merit and failure to demonstrate legal entitlement. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
52 numbers of writ petitioners have joined together in filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer:
“(A) direct / command the State Respondent more particularly the Respondent No. 1 to 7 to do the needful for conversion of Jamalpur Forest village under Hawaithang Forest Range to Revenue Village;
(B) direct / command the Respondent No. 1, to 7 to do the needful for settlement of land to the Petitioners in Jamalpur Forest Village;
(C) direct / command the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to dispose of the representation / memorandum dated 20/9/2016 within a specified period;
-AND-
Upon cause / causes being shown by the respondents and on perusal of records and hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute.
-AND-
In the interim pending final disposal of this writ petition Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct the Respondents not to evict the petitioners from their respective lands of Jamalpur Forest Village under Hawaithang Forest Range.
And your humble petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray for your Lordship's kind act.”
2. As per the facts projected, the petitioners are residing in the Jamalpur Forest village under Hawaithang Forest Range in the district of Cachar since a long period of time. There have been approaches made by their predecessors for allotment of land in their names. The petitioners have earlier also approached this Court and there was a direction to consider their cases. However as no action has been taken for allotment of land by converting the same into revenue villages, the petitioners had approached this Court.
3. I have heard Shri A. R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department.
4. Shri Bhuyan, the learned counsel has submitted that though the Forest Conservation Act had come into force in the year 1980, there have been moves to make allotment of land to the petitioners by converting the same into revenue villages. In this regard, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to various communications dated 12.06.1978, 20.02.1982 and 28.06.1995. In all those communications, detail reports were called for to initiate the process. He has also referred to an order dated 06.03.1987 passed by this Court in Civil Rule 258/1987 wherein there was an observation for disposal of the representation of the petitioners by the Forest authorities within a period of 15 days and within those 15 days, no move be taken for their eviction. Reliance has also been placed upon a communication dated 01.03.2003 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Assam to the Conservators of Forest on the aspect of regularization of encroachments pre 1980. He has submitted that the petitioners have been in possession of the respective lands prior to the aforesaid enactment of 1980 and therefore entitled to the allotment of land. The learned counsel has also relied upon the Schedule Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 and has submitted that even under the said Act, the petitioners would be entitled to certain benefits.
5. Per contra, Shri Gogoi, the learned Standing Counsel, Forest Departme
